Re: A concrete proposal for rolling implementation
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:58:31AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 05/05/11 at 08:51 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le jeudi 05 mai 2011 à 08:23 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> > > > Could you please give a concrete example of where this would be needed?
> > > > I think all existing cases should be covered by uploading directly to
> > > > either t-p-u or unstable.
> > >
> > > Use case:
> > > During freeze, there's a library transition in unstable, and a new
> > > upstream version in unstable. You want to get the new upstream version
> > > into rolling (not testing), but you can't because it would pull the
> > > whole transition.
> >
> > You don’t need to pull the whole transition, that’s the point of my
> > proposal. You just need to put the library being transitioned and your
> > package.
> >
> > > So you need a way to upload the new upstream version linked against the
> > > libraries in rolling.
> >
> > Alternatively, if testing is so broken you need that new upstream
> > version and it can build against the testing libraries, you can use
> > testing-proposed-updates - in all cases, for both testing and rolling, a
> > targeted fix being preferable.
>
> That might not be the preferred solution during freeze.
> I am not sure of how testing-proposed-updates works. Could we:
> 1. upload package 1.1-1 (the new upstream we want in rolling) to
> testing-proposed-updates
> 2. accept package 1.1-1 into rolling
> 3. upload package 1.0-2 (new version of the package currently in
> testing, with a targeted fix) to testing-proposed-updates
> 4. accept package 1.0-2 into testing
> ?
>
> I'm not saying that rolling-proposed-updates should be used frequently,
> but it sounds more comfortable to have it at hand.
> Of course, we could also decide to add it later.
Frankly I'd say that the simple proposal could be implemented like
tomorrow, and we could see how well it fares, and refine it when we
understand its dynamics.
Right now there are too many "what if", the simple proposal made of a
second britney run + forces is non intrusive, can be done on a d.net
host easily enough, and we could learn this way how it works in
practice. Sounds better than over engineering.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Reply to: